28 Mr. E. Hargitt on the Genus lyngipicus. 



4. Iyngipicus fulvifasciatus. 



lyngipicus fulvifasciutus, Hargitt, Ibis, 1881, p. 598. 



/. similis /. maculato, Gm., ex insula Luzonica, sed cauda 



fulvescciite, nigro late transfasciata, uropygio fulves- 



cente, vix maculato, occipitc macula utriuque lata iiotato 



distinguendus. 



Hab. in insulis Pliilippinis '' Basilan " et " Mindanao " 



dictis. Typus in Mus. R. G. Wardlaw- Ramsay, 



With regard to this species, the Marquis of Tweeddale 

 P. Z. S. 1878, p. 913) says :— " When writing on Picus 

 maculatus, Scopoli (Tr. Z. S. ix. p, 148), I stated that the 

 titles I then brouglit together were treated as synonyms, on 

 the assumption that the islands of Luzon, Panay, and Min- 

 danao possessed but one and the same species of Yungipicus. 

 I had had no opportunity of examining an example from any 

 one of the Philippine Islands. Since then Mr. Everett has 

 sent me examples of a species of the genus from Luzon ; and 

 these I identified (P. Z. S. 1877, p. 689) with P. maculatus, 

 rather tlian create a new title, while their dimensions were 

 too small for P. validirostris (Blyth) . The birds from Zam- 

 boanga differ specifically from the 'Luzon species : they are 

 larger; the uropygium and upper tail-coverts are unspotted 

 tawny white ; and the rectrices are tawny buff, banded with 

 dark brown, and not dark brown for the most part, as in the 

 Luzon birds, with narrow albescent bands or marks. In both, 

 the lower throat and upper breast are spotted, and not streaked 

 as in F. fusco-albidus of the Sunda Islands and Malacca. 

 Until typical examples of P. maculatus from Panay are com- 

 pared, it cannot be affirmed whether the type of P. maculatus 

 belongs to the Luzon or Mindanao species, or whether it may 

 not be a species distinct from either. In the meantime I adopt 

 BlytVs title, the dimensions he gives being exactly those of 

 the Zamboanga species — bill to forehead 0"75, wing 3'25." 



These measurements and particulars exactly coincide with 

 myoAvn observations. Although we cannot be satisfied until 

 we have seen the Panay bird, still, if it is to correspond with 

 Sonnerat's figure and description, I do not see how it can dif- 

 fer from the Luzon specimens which answer that description. 



